Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32185684›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2021

Site qualification and clinical interpretation standards for

Jennifer M Renaud, Manuja Premaratne, Marie-Claude Villeneuve, Vincent Finnerty, Francois Harel, Therèse Heinonen, Jean-Claude Tardif, Terrence D Ruddy, Robert A deKemp

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. ISCHEMIA questions and MITNEC answers: Defining and standardizing clinical ischemic jeopardy with SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jennifer M RenaudDivision of Cardiology and National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada.
Manuja PremaratneDivision of Cardiology and National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada.
Marie-Claude VilleneuveDivision of Cardiology and Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Centre, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Vincent FinnertyDivision of Cardiology and Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Centre, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Francois HarelDivision of Cardiology and Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Centre, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Therèse HeinonenDivision of Cardiology and Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Centre, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jean-Claude TardifDivision of Cardiology and Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Centre, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Terrence D RuddyDivision of Cardiology and National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada.
Robert A deKempDivision of Cardiology and National Cardiac PET Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4W7, Canada. radekemp@ottawaheart.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQualification and interpretation standards are essential for establishing

methodsRest-stress

resultsPhantom scans: visual scoring confirmed RCA-ischemia on all cameras. Regional SSS, SDS agreement was moderate to very good: ICC-r = 0.57, 0.84. Patient scans: 90% of global SSS, 85% of SDS differences were ≤ 3. Regional SSS, SDS agreement: ICC-r = 0.87, 0.86, and global abnormal (SSS ≥ 4) and ischemic (SDS ≥ 2) interpretation: ICC-r = 0.90 were excellent. Clinical interpretation agreement was 100% following review. Image quality agreement was 70%. Automated metrics also agreed: ischemic total perfusion deficit ICC-r = 0.75, reversible perfusion defect, transient ischemic dilation, and S-R LV ejection fraction ICC-r ≥ 0.90.

conclusionQuantitative scoring and interpretation of scans were highly repeatable with site qualification and clinical interpretation standardization, indicating that dual-core lab interpretation is appropriate to determine

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingTechnetiumAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial Perfusion ImagingTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTechnetiumIschemia quantificationNon-invasive myocardial perfusion imagingSingle-photon emission computed tomographyStandardizationTechnetium-99m

Identifiers

PMID32185684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.